manchester motorbike show Tried the hassy out for the first time ^_^ in love
- Thread starter steele01
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,372
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- No
You can't fault the quality, that's medium format for you, but they're snapshots, just aren't well composed or that interesting at all really, it's all too messy, which is a main challenge of shooting at a show.
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm a biker. There were some lovely bikes there for you to take pics of. But... but.. WHERE ARE THEY!?
Sorry your tight detail crops just leave my eyes stinging. Briliantly exposed, wonderful tones... but the subject & composition are just?!?! Not one whole bike in any frame, which could be forgiven if you were picking out an interesting detail.... which as far as I can tell... you haven't... the RD-LC logo on a side panel, or the Triton sign writing on a tank are not really interesting details. There are two worthy shots in there that I can see.
The owner's warning lable on A0001962.jpg which is humourouse.... his wit, unfortuinately not yours.
And the clear dry-clutch cover on I presume its a Tubular TZ race-bike, in A0001823.jpg... which is novel... but angle and reflections actually make the detail interest difficult to interpret.
Period dummy by the goldie, in B&W in A0001906.jpg... nice try, juxtopositioning the old Brit bike with big Yamaha logo in the back-ground... unforunately its a bit of a hakneyed clice, especially doing it in B&W... but doesn't work simply because of the clutter... was it a cafe table behind left? & chap in hat on manaquin's right.... and that clutter creates a confusion, becouse I presume to get the shot, hand holding, you have used a fairly low shutter speed, what 1/30th ish? to try and blue them out, but keep the Yammie sign focused... so you have crisp bike, crisp sign and blured but not blurred out filling in the middle, and nothing really standing out as 'the subject'.... like a whole motorbike!
A0001800.jpg ... look at it... I can tell its an early RD-LC, but what of its many classic features or custom touches were you trying to capture.... I see a tax disc.... seriousely THAT is what it looks like you were photographing.
The bike has a signature rear fender... you chopped it in half. Has a notable banana semi bum stop seat, and that one looks to have custom stitched cover... you cut it in half... has custom decaling.... but only bit you have cought is the side panel.... has an after-market swing arm, I suspect a spondon or metamachek, with rotary chain adjustor.... lost behind the exhaust, missed in the composition... then there's what looks to be a one-off possibly lazer cut feature front sprocket cover... just poking into the bottom left corner of the frame..... SO MANY details you could have drawn out just in what I can see.... and you emphasise..... a £2.99 common as muck, out the M&P catalogue Moto-Fizz carbon effect tax disc holder!!
ooooh! in the full fliker set! A0001967.jpg a WHOLE motorbike in the frame! Norton Dommie Classic Racer by the looks of it; given Boyer ignition module on the forks, lack of lights and the oil-catch pipe-work...
Your caption "This photo was taken on March 23, 2013 using a Hasselblad H3D."...
See that bit of paper on the bikes seat? Yeah, that's probably the entry description; ought to tell you what the bike is, and whats interesting about it.... THAT is what ought to be in your photo-caption, because THAT is what makes the bike interesting and worth taking a photo of and gives it relevence.... and no-one but other photographers, who probably have very little interest in motorcycles, give two hoots what camera you used, or the exposure settings... even if you know nothing what so ever about motorbikes, which is forgivable... NOT reading the bumph about what you are taking a shot of isn't.
A0001767.jpg - another, well ALMOST complete in frame bike.... I know its a 1959 bevel drive Ducati 125 Sport..... IN SHOT but illegible is that entry description sheet, in a frame, in clear view...probably tells you why the bike is wearing a number 80 race plate, and why its significant; whether its a champion or was ridden by one or something.... its obviousely a special motorcycle.... but what does your description say? Yup... taken with a Hasselblad...
Tom Steel wild-life photography implies that motorbikes aren't your main area of interest.... but even so... if you aren't that interested and cant even be bothered to read the exhibit bumph on what you were looking at,to know what's interesting about it, then take random shots of random bits?!?!?
Honestly... there is just so much wasted potential there, because you really haven't put in much effort, to actually capture any real interest.
You have attempted to ape the style of the brochure photographers and failed.. because you obviously dont know what you were looking at, haven't bothered really to find out, (buying a program or reading the exhibit info on stand!) and have pointed the camera at the wrong bits.
Dont matter how good your camera is mate... if you dont know where to point it.
Sorry.
But really, A0001800.jpg sums it up... probably a £20K one off build bike, with half a dozen really interesting features of interest I can see lurking half in frame.... you point a £2K camera at it... and best point of interest you can find is a ten a penny carbon effect tax disc holder!
If that's the style you are after, great... camera is doing a wonderful job of getting it for you.... now do your bit, and know your subject and point it at stuff worth pointing it at.
Sorry to be so harsh, but the crops, really did jangle my eyes, as I was trying to look out of the frame at the bits the camera should have been pointed at where the interest lay.
KNOW YOUR SUBJECT before you shoot it.
Sorry your tight detail crops just leave my eyes stinging. Briliantly exposed, wonderful tones... but the subject & composition are just?!?! Not one whole bike in any frame, which could be forgiven if you were picking out an interesting detail.... which as far as I can tell... you haven't... the RD-LC logo on a side panel, or the Triton sign writing on a tank are not really interesting details. There are two worthy shots in there that I can see.
The owner's warning lable on A0001962.jpg which is humourouse.... his wit, unfortuinately not yours.
And the clear dry-clutch cover on I presume its a Tubular TZ race-bike, in A0001823.jpg... which is novel... but angle and reflections actually make the detail interest difficult to interpret.
Period dummy by the goldie, in B&W in A0001906.jpg... nice try, juxtopositioning the old Brit bike with big Yamaha logo in the back-ground... unforunately its a bit of a hakneyed clice, especially doing it in B&W... but doesn't work simply because of the clutter... was it a cafe table behind left? & chap in hat on manaquin's right.... and that clutter creates a confusion, becouse I presume to get the shot, hand holding, you have used a fairly low shutter speed, what 1/30th ish? to try and blue them out, but keep the Yammie sign focused... so you have crisp bike, crisp sign and blured but not blurred out filling in the middle, and nothing really standing out as 'the subject'.... like a whole motorbike!
A0001800.jpg ... look at it... I can tell its an early RD-LC, but what of its many classic features or custom touches were you trying to capture.... I see a tax disc.... seriousely THAT is what it looks like you were photographing.
The bike has a signature rear fender... you chopped it in half. Has a notable banana semi bum stop seat, and that one looks to have custom stitched cover... you cut it in half... has custom decaling.... but only bit you have cought is the side panel.... has an after-market swing arm, I suspect a spondon or metamachek, with rotary chain adjustor.... lost behind the exhaust, missed in the composition... then there's what looks to be a one-off possibly lazer cut feature front sprocket cover... just poking into the bottom left corner of the frame..... SO MANY details you could have drawn out just in what I can see.... and you emphasise..... a £2.99 common as muck, out the M&P catalogue Moto-Fizz carbon effect tax disc holder!!
ooooh! in the full fliker set! A0001967.jpg a WHOLE motorbike in the frame! Norton Dommie Classic Racer by the looks of it; given Boyer ignition module on the forks, lack of lights and the oil-catch pipe-work...
Your caption "This photo was taken on March 23, 2013 using a Hasselblad H3D."...
See that bit of paper on the bikes seat? Yeah, that's probably the entry description; ought to tell you what the bike is, and whats interesting about it.... THAT is what ought to be in your photo-caption, because THAT is what makes the bike interesting and worth taking a photo of and gives it relevence.... and no-one but other photographers, who probably have very little interest in motorcycles, give two hoots what camera you used, or the exposure settings... even if you know nothing what so ever about motorbikes, which is forgivable... NOT reading the bumph about what you are taking a shot of isn't.
A0001767.jpg - another, well ALMOST complete in frame bike.... I know its a 1959 bevel drive Ducati 125 Sport..... IN SHOT but illegible is that entry description sheet, in a frame, in clear view...probably tells you why the bike is wearing a number 80 race plate, and why its significant; whether its a champion or was ridden by one or something.... its obviousely a special motorcycle.... but what does your description say? Yup... taken with a Hasselblad...
Tom Steel wild-life photography implies that motorbikes aren't your main area of interest.... but even so... if you aren't that interested and cant even be bothered to read the exhibit bumph on what you were looking at,to know what's interesting about it, then take random shots of random bits?!?!?
Honestly... there is just so much wasted potential there, because you really haven't put in much effort, to actually capture any real interest.
You have attempted to ape the style of the brochure photographers and failed.. because you obviously dont know what you were looking at, haven't bothered really to find out, (buying a program or reading the exhibit info on stand!) and have pointed the camera at the wrong bits.
Dont matter how good your camera is mate... if you dont know where to point it.
Sorry.
But really, A0001800.jpg sums it up... probably a £20K one off build bike, with half a dozen really interesting features of interest I can see lurking half in frame.... you point a £2K camera at it... and best point of interest you can find is a ten a penny carbon effect tax disc holder!
If that's the style you are after, great... camera is doing a wonderful job of getting it for you.... now do your bit, and know your subject and point it at stuff worth pointing it at.
Sorry to be so harsh, but the crops, really did jangle my eyes, as I was trying to look out of the frame at the bits the camera should have been pointed at where the interest lay.
KNOW YOUR SUBJECT before you shoot it.
Hi,
Hope you like the camera and the pics it takes!
I like the crispness of your pictures, although they are all a bit tight (on the ones posted here).
I did chuckle at the note on the seat... scary to think they'd like a naked bloke on there...
I'm guessing the shows layout wasn't spaced out and that the other people would be in the way, so well done on getting shots.
TBH its the sort of shots I'd take (sorry teflon!) as there are quite a few details on the bikes
Looks busy there too.
Perhaps for next time see about a bit further back or a wider lens (if possible)?
If you've got space on the memory card, do as teflon mentioned, take a pic of the blurb sheets (if there are any) then of the bike from different positions.
Personally .. nice shots, and keep practicing and taking more.
Might be worth asking Teflon in a pm for best bits to take pics of bikes (what to look out for etc)..?
Hope you like the camera and the pics it takes!
I like the crispness of your pictures, although they are all a bit tight (on the ones posted here).
I did chuckle at the note on the seat... scary to think they'd like a naked bloke on there...
I'm guessing the shows layout wasn't spaced out and that the other people would be in the way, so well done on getting shots.
TBH its the sort of shots I'd take (sorry teflon!) as there are quite a few details on the bikes
Looks busy there too.
Perhaps for next time see about a bit further back or a wider lens (if possible)?
If you've got space on the memory card, do as teflon mentioned, take a pic of the blurb sheets (if there are any) then of the bike from different positions.
Personally .. nice shots, and keep practicing and taking more.
Might be worth asking Teflon in a pm for best bits to take pics of bikes (what to look out for etc)..?
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Obviously the hope is the note will bate a nubile young lady, not some fat old slapper or balding bearded bloke... but it has happened..... but bikers tend to be good to their word and up for the laugh... though not at THAT kind of show, me-thinks
- Messages
- 100
- Edit My Images
- No
Well I'm a biker, and I quite like a few of them. But what do I know?
- Messages
- 1,372
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd like to point out I'm also a biker, and agree completely with Mike.
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So.. what your saying is.... you MEANT to take a photo of the tax disc holder...
You are so emured to custom features on Elcies now, evidence that one may actually be ridden is the most thrilling thing about it to you..... and that other detail interest is there, but only to those so imtimately initiated anoracks who can tell from three bolt heads, what the bike is and probably name the bloke in birmingham that built it fifty years ago.....
Fair enough then... if you captured what you set out to..
I simply don't like it.
Your 'style' appears to be all about impact with minute amounts of interest.
Shock-Jock Photography, perhaps. If it sells great... I still don't like it.
And If you dare to be different, you have to expect polarity of opinion, and if you stick it on a forum called critisism & comment, you are, presumably asking for it, really.
Add on Ed:-
Which it seems you were... but only if it praised them as highly as the bike forums you have shown them on, and the owners you have shown them to....
Useful C&C then for you to consider;
If you suggest you are picking out, critical detail interest for an elite few.... who you suggest ought to know what they are looking at, without greater prompt... why do they even need or want a picture?
And, what about the wider masses who may not be SO intimate with the subject? Are they irrelevant and unworthy of consideration? Are your photo's so precious that they should remain utterly obscure until the viewer is worthy enough to be able to interpret them?
If they are merely for this initiated few, why show them to any one else? Who may or may not offer the praise and adoration you so clearly desire of them?
I'm a biker. I've been riding bikes over thirty years. I've built the buggers for everything from trials to road-race to drag racing as well as for the street, and clocked up more than a few laps round a track on them. Over the years, if its had wheels, If its been in reach, I've either had my leg over it, or a spanner on it. I wouldn't say I was 'in' to classic Yamaha's, though one was last winter's project. Valve? OK... I said I presumed it was a late tube TZ... Valves don't, as standard have removable box sub-frames and dry clutches... I'm hardly ignorant... but I'm obviously not one of those intimates that can tell an exact model year and variant, of a heavily customized machine, from a close crop of two frame rails!
Am I supposed to be impressed by the impact of the photos alone?
Am I supposed to be awed?
Do you wish me to be inspired to become so fanatical about thirty years of reed-valve twins that I have to know every nut and bolt and part number of every different one, and dissapear into the oblivion of that specialisation to the point I too am impressed by a mere tax disc?
WHAT exactly do you want to convey in your photo's?
And to who?
You are so emured to custom features on Elcies now, evidence that one may actually be ridden is the most thrilling thing about it to you..... and that other detail interest is there, but only to those so imtimately initiated anoracks who can tell from three bolt heads, what the bike is and probably name the bloke in birmingham that built it fifty years ago.....
Fair enough then... if you captured what you set out to..
I simply don't like it.
Your 'style' appears to be all about impact with minute amounts of interest.
Shock-Jock Photography, perhaps. If it sells great... I still don't like it.
And If you dare to be different, you have to expect polarity of opinion, and if you stick it on a forum called critisism & comment, you are, presumably asking for it, really.
Add on Ed:-
Which it seems you were... but only if it praised them as highly as the bike forums you have shown them on, and the owners you have shown them to....
Useful C&C then for you to consider;
If you suggest you are picking out, critical detail interest for an elite few.... who you suggest ought to know what they are looking at, without greater prompt... why do they even need or want a picture?
And, what about the wider masses who may not be SO intimate with the subject? Are they irrelevant and unworthy of consideration? Are your photo's so precious that they should remain utterly obscure until the viewer is worthy enough to be able to interpret them?
If they are merely for this initiated few, why show them to any one else? Who may or may not offer the praise and adoration you so clearly desire of them?
I'm a biker. I've been riding bikes over thirty years. I've built the buggers for everything from trials to road-race to drag racing as well as for the street, and clocked up more than a few laps round a track on them. Over the years, if its had wheels, If its been in reach, I've either had my leg over it, or a spanner on it. I wouldn't say I was 'in' to classic Yamaha's, though one was last winter's project. Valve? OK... I said I presumed it was a late tube TZ... Valves don't, as standard have removable box sub-frames and dry clutches... I'm hardly ignorant... but I'm obviously not one of those intimates that can tell an exact model year and variant, of a heavily customized machine, from a close crop of two frame rails!
Am I supposed to be impressed by the impact of the photos alone?
Am I supposed to be awed?
Do you wish me to be inspired to become so fanatical about thirty years of reed-valve twins that I have to know every nut and bolt and part number of every different one, and dissapear into the oblivion of that specialisation to the point I too am impressed by a mere tax disc?
WHAT exactly do you want to convey in your photo's?
And to who?
Last edited:
Yv
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OK gentlemen, deep breaths please.
Some fantastic critique, although I have to say Mike, as a neutral [me no like bikes very much], it does sound slightly like its a bit ranty, perhaps just a modicum of moderation next time, but please don't stop offering so much, its a pleasant change.
Steele01, there are many here that would kill for such critique, so please don't take it quite so personally, you don't have to agree with all critique offered, but use it as a learning experience and understand what other people with the same passions would like to see.
Now can we please keep it civil in here. Thankyou
Some fantastic critique, although I have to say Mike, as a neutral [me no like bikes very much], it does sound slightly like its a bit ranty, perhaps just a modicum of moderation next time, but please don't stop offering so much, its a pleasant change.
Steele01, there are many here that would kill for such critique, so please don't take it quite so personally, you don't have to agree with all critique offered, but use it as a learning experience and understand what other people with the same passions would like to see.
Now can we please keep it civil in here. Thankyou
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Second last one was the best photo for me, it's always difficult to get entire bikes at these shows.
For once, thought the critique of the critique was the star of this thread
For once, thought the critique of the critique was the star of this thread
- Messages
- 753
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I've got to admit, as ranty/unnecessary as a lot of the critique has been I agree with a few major fundamentals of the points raised.
The tones of the images and general exposures are fine. I appreciate you mentioned the use of a 'blad as you were trying out a new system, although as I'm sure you appreciate these images are far from pushing the envelope with it and you would have been arguably better off with a top-end DSLR in those conditions.
If these images are simply an initiation with the 'blad to get used to how it works/feels, then as a test the images are fine. As standalone coverage of an event I have to agree with the above, regardless of your history. This set seems to say more about the camera used rather than your own inspirations or the events itself. There is little thought to composition or context.
I appreciate that a lot of the crit has been negative, which perhaps has an element of 'you should know better' about it rather than the images actually being poor. I also agree with you that some of the crit seemed to be more concerned with belittling your efforts rather then helping you improve (although some very good points raised). One of the drawbacks of using a 'blad is that people expect top-flight images out of you regardless of the subject or your comfortability with it. Obviously the benefit of using one in this day and age is that it makes you stand-out from the crowd before you've even taken a picture.
On a more positive note, the minimal processing used leaves the images very crisp without going over the top.
ETA - As for a lot of pros avoiding the forum, I can only assume it's for vanity. There are many things you can learn in photography, but having a thick-skin isn't one of them. I've seen a lot of pros kick up a storm over having their images critiqued by amateurs, as if their opinion is somehow worth less (ignoring the fact that the target audience for most professionals isn't other professionals). A professional photographer should be their own worst critic. If someone who is just getting into the hobby can pick out glaring flaws, then the professional should have picked these up before they even pressed the shutter, let alone after they went to the effort of editing and uploading them. Afterall, it's their job to know what works.
The tones of the images and general exposures are fine. I appreciate you mentioned the use of a 'blad as you were trying out a new system, although as I'm sure you appreciate these images are far from pushing the envelope with it and you would have been arguably better off with a top-end DSLR in those conditions.
If these images are simply an initiation with the 'blad to get used to how it works/feels, then as a test the images are fine. As standalone coverage of an event I have to agree with the above, regardless of your history. This set seems to say more about the camera used rather than your own inspirations or the events itself. There is little thought to composition or context.
I appreciate that a lot of the crit has been negative, which perhaps has an element of 'you should know better' about it rather than the images actually being poor. I also agree with you that some of the crit seemed to be more concerned with belittling your efforts rather then helping you improve (although some very good points raised). One of the drawbacks of using a 'blad is that people expect top-flight images out of you regardless of the subject or your comfortability with it. Obviously the benefit of using one in this day and age is that it makes you stand-out from the crowd before you've even taken a picture.
On a more positive note, the minimal processing used leaves the images very crisp without going over the top.
ETA - As for a lot of pros avoiding the forum, I can only assume it's for vanity. There are many things you can learn in photography, but having a thick-skin isn't one of them. I've seen a lot of pros kick up a storm over having their images critiqued by amateurs, as if their opinion is somehow worth less (ignoring the fact that the target audience for most professionals isn't other professionals). A professional photographer should be their own worst critic. If someone who is just getting into the hobby can pick out glaring flaws, then the professional should have picked these up before they even pressed the shutter, let alone after they went to the effort of editing and uploading them. Afterall, it's their job to know what works.
Last edited:
